King Kai sez:“False. We have THOUSANDS of other texts from that far back, many of them much older than the biblical accounts. This is why your Jesus’-words-only stuff is nonsense. Our historical sources for time periods around Jesus’ life are exceptional”.
These texts must include The Dead Sea Scrolls and among them the Book Of Enoch (Briefly Quoted in Jude)that extrapolates
the Genesis 6 Story that Angels mated with Humans, yes?
Jubilees also concurs with Enoch and also talks about these “Watchers” as well,
as well as Peter comparing the sins of the Angels to what happened at Sodom and Gomorra, the ones who ‘left their First Estate’ (Heaven), and came down to Earth to cause shenanigans.
Most of the Early Church Fathers BELIEVED the Gen 6 Angel/Human Hybrid story…until Augustine, when he
claimed the “Sons Of God” were the Godly Line Of Seth.
however, if the MUCH later Godly ‘Lines Of Seth’ theory held true, why did they Die in the Flood??
You really shouldn’t use words like “obviously” when an issue is far from obvious. Conservative AND secular scholars alike have noted that Luke actually seems to be relatively uninfluenced by Paul’s theology. They’ve looked for the distinctive markers of Pauline thought (themes, language, etc.) and have consistently found that, rather than simply being Paul’s hack, Luke possesses a theological voice uniquely his own. Consequently, you have an entire world of scholarship to deal with here, bud, and any references to the supposedly close relationship between Luke and Paul are NOT sufficient evidence to say that Luke is simply Paul’s mouthpiece.[/quote]
I meant to respond to this separately.
I say that Paul dictated much of Luke’s work because Paul is the only source for much of his information (specifically Acts).
That should be obvious, which is why it should be obvious why I used the word ‘obviously’
And I never said that Luke is merely Paul’s mouthpiece. Seems like you’re arguing against the ‘normal’ points of contention that you’ve been trained to defend against. You keep making assumptions based on some perceived assumption on my part.[/quote]
You said, and I quote…
If that’s not what you meant, then you shouldn’t have used the verb “dictate” with the gerund “writing.” Together, those terms imply literary action, not merely one individual providing the source material for another. And believe me, JP, the stuff you are talking about is FAR from the ‘normal’ points of contention in scholarly circles. There aren’t any apologetics courses tailored to dealing with the nonsense you spew.[/quote]
[b]dictate
vb [dɪkË?teɪt]
to say (messages, letters, speeches, etc.) aloud for mechanical recording or verbatim transcription by another person[/b]
I meant it just as I wrote it. Paul told the stories, and Luke wrote them down.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
JP, I just don’t get how you refuse to accept these allegedly unreliable documents until you think you see them saying something useful to your truly outlandish points. I wish you could believe that I’m not trying to beat you up, but your whole paradigm for approaching the Christian religion is way out there dude. Seriously. [/quote]
My faith centers around the fact that Christ is Lord, His Father is God, and that His Word is the only truth. He was sent to fulfill the prophecies as proof of His identity, die for our sins, and to give us the Truth so that we may be set free.
He said that we only have one Teacher, yet “Christianity” follows Paul more closely than Christ, and you claim that my paradigm for approaching Christianity is outlandish?
Any religion is also a cult by definition. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Buddhist, Muslim… different deities and different worship requirements, but all are cults as well as religions.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what you are going for here, JP. Do you think you are being clever or something? It’s not like you are tripping me up; I flat out told you that I am using the term “cult” in a technical sense, i.e., how it is used in the field of sociology. It’s common knowledge that the word “cult” has other uses too, but the sociological sense of that word specifically distinguishes between “religions” and “cults.” Your comeback seems like the old “a-b***h-is-a-female-dog” retort. Yes, your comment is true, but absolutely irrelevant in a world where words have more than one meaning/usage. [/quote]
lol.
So you accept the definition of the word as it applies to other people, but reject the definition that applies to you. I am not surprised.
[quote][quote]
Actually, by following Paul more closely than you follow Christ, you place yourself outside of the definition of Christianity. No matter what you label it, if you believe the teachings of anyone who contradicts Christ or falls into the description of the people He warned us about, you are not Christian.
[/quote]
Haha again, you really need to stop using the word “definition” like that. You betray your ignorance of both the meaning of the term AND modern linguistic theory every single time you use it. And more importantly, you have continually failed to demonstrate that Paul contradicts Christ. I have answered your objections again and again, yet you continue to throw out “your” misreadings of Paul (I hesitate to attribute them to you, knowing exactly how many you have stolen from other sources) as if they were self-evident facts.[/quote]
The definition of Christianity is ‘those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ’. You follow Paul, therefore you do not fall into the definition of ‘Christian’. You fall under the definition of ‘Paulinian’.
You are only ‘Christian’ in that you follow Christ’s teachings when Paul tells you to.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< My faith centers around the fact that Christ is Lord, His Father is God, and that His Word is the only truth. He was sent to fulfill the prophecies as proof of His identity, die for our sins, and to give us the Truth so that we may be set free.
He said that we only have one Teacher, yet “Christianity” follows Paul more closely than Christ, and you claim that my paradigm for approaching Christianity is outlandish?[/quote]Lemme know when you find the writings Jesus left penned by His own hand. Until then you’ll be relying on the writings of men whom He commissioned to be His instruments of Revelation. Like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And Paul. OR. You can pick and choose for yourself what you like based on wholly arbitrary and inconsistent exegesis and hermeneutics because it makes you feel uniquely endowed with truth that the whoooooooole church for 2 millenia has missed. Like practically every other pseudo Christian cult proclaims of itself. EVERYBODY had it wrong until our guy showed up.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< My faith centers around the fact that Christ is Lord, His Father is God, and that His Word is the only truth. He was sent to fulfill the prophecies as proof of His identity, die for our sins, and to give us the Truth so that we may be set free.
He said that we only have one Teacher, yet “Christianity” follows Paul more closely than Christ, and you claim that my paradigm for approaching Christianity is outlandish?[/quote]Lemme know when you find the writings Jesus left penned by His own hand. Until then you’ll be relying on the writings of men whom He commissioned to be His instruments of Revelation. Like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And Paul. OR. You can pick and choose for yourself what you like based on wholly arbitrary and inconsistent exegesis and hermeneutics because it makes you feel uniquely endowed with truth that the whoooooooole church for 2 millenia has missed. Like practically every other pseudo Christian cult proclaims of itself. EVERYBODY had it wrong until our guy showed up.
[/quote]
God told me to quit bothering you Christians. If that’s what you want to do, then do it.
Well, I guess God talks with only a few and the rest have to be content just reading excerpts from his messengers.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Your point is irrelevant. You called me a hypocrite because you said Protestant “by definition” means heretic. That was a ridiculous statement, as the definition of Protestant is not “heretic.” As I said before, the phrase “by definition” is reserved for tautologies. When a word has several meanings, however, or has changed its meaning through time, it cannot function tautologically. “Heretic,” while originally used to refer to any person who disagreed with the Roman Catholic faith, now has a broader range of meanings, being used to refer to anyone who departs from the norm of a particular religious system. You can say that, from a Catholic perspective, i.e., by THEIR CHOSEN definition of the word heretic, a Protestant would qualify as such. But the word Protestant does not, by ITS very definition, mean “heretic.” [/quote]
No. I called you a hypocrite because you call others heretics, when you fall under the definition of a heretic.
Protestant does not mean heretic. Of course. But a Protestant does not believe in every detail of the Catholic religion. That makes all Protestants heretics by the definition of heretic.
Twist and turn and make excuses and sugar-coat the situation any way you want. Doesn’t change it.
[quote][quote]
[quote][quote]
3) You claim to be able to interpret the texts better than those who have published accepted versions of the Scriptures. And here you accuse me. Hypocrite.
[/quote]
Hmm, that’s not true. What I’ve most OFTEN taken issue with is your inability to understand the meaning of the English words chosen to translate the Greek. When I have disagreed with particular translations, it is because they are OUTDATED translations, ones which no longer garner any respect in critical circles. Your repeated use of the KJV in the past is an EXCELLENT example of what I am talking about. Despite the fact that the KJV is now widely recognized as a very poor translation, you still chose to use it.[/quote]
Actually, at your behest, I have taken to using the HCSB and bouncing its translation against other versions using the online parallel bible website.
[/quote]
Hence why I used the modifying phrase “in the past” and the past tense form of the verse “choose.” Do you read the stuff I write? I am asking that seriously. [/quote]
lol.
Dude, are you reading the stuff you write? You are being so defensive that you are taking everything as a contradictory argument.
I can seriously imagine you foaming at the mouth as you type.
[quote][quote]
And the notion that current scholars have a better idea of how to translate texts written 2000 years ago than early scholars did is laughable. Your intellectualism toward yourself leads to anti-intellectualism toward others, just as it always has.
[/quote]
Please explain why that is laughable, given the fact that (1) scholars only discovered in the last 100 years that biblical Greek was a widespread dialect known as Koine rather than a “Holy Spirit-inspired” language, (2) found the Dead Sea Scrolls and other treasure troves of ancient Jewish texts that shed light on the culture of Jesus’ time, (3) and began to operate outside of purely confessional interests, i.e., arguing for the point of view of particular denominations. If you actually knew anything about the history of interpretation, you would compare Augustine’s analysis of Scripture to modern methods and shake your head in embarrassment for the old man. Frankly, he did the best he could with the tools he possessed, but he lacked the necessary equipment, skills, knowledge, and self-consciousness to be a truly faithful interpreter of Scripture. The sad fact is that, though I am distinguishing between someone who wrote 1600 years ago and someone writing today, it was almost as bad 200 years ago. In other words, in skills, knowledge of relevant backgrounds, and self-analysis, scholars today are in a much better position to understand Scripture
Of course, since you don’t know anything about the history of interpretation, you have no knowledge of how things have changed over the last several centuries. To your ignorant mind, Thomas Aquinas was every bit as skilled and well-equipped an exegete as D.A. Carson is. Your ignorance of the things about which you speak with such confidence would be laughable, JP, if it weren’t for the fact that you have set yourself as a defender of the “truth.”[/quote]
The fact that there are so many different versions of the Bible today contradicts your argument that today’s scholars are better equipped to glean the truth from the ancient texts. There is only one Truth.
[quote][quote]
Not just a little bit self-absorbed are we? Maybe just a little naive about how the devil works his deceptions?
[/quote]
Since you (1) don’t belong to a church, and (2) know nothing about Scripture, I don’t think you are in ANY position to tell me about the devil’s deceptions. Frankly, I think you are reveling under his deceiving hand right now.[/quote]
Lol again. I forgot that you had a PI investigate me and find out all about my past and present. No, wait, that’s not it. Oh, yeah, we’ve known each other for years and gotten to know all about each other and no, no… That’s not it either.
How exactly is it that you know so much about me again? Seems as if you got your information about me from the same place you got your understanding of Scripture.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
You are entirely reliant on translations, and as someone who eats with bible translators and knows the painstaking process that is the creation of a translation, the myriad interpretive judgments that must be made, I can tell you that no translator would EVER agree that a truly thorough knowledge of Scripture could come through a translation.
[/quote]
I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that understanding of the Scriptures does not come through translation, but will come through in any translation.
When I read the various versions of the Bible, they all say the same thing. That’s the beauty of the Truth.
[quote][quote]JayPierce wrote:
What would you say if He stood before you and asked why you didn’t believe His words? Why you take the teachings of a man whose spirit is not right within him over His? Because they are only interpretations and distillations? Not really His words? You needed someone else to expound on His teachings, instead of trusting in Him?
Got a clue as to what He would say in response?[/quote]
KingKai wrote:
You are the one who should be worried, JP. Jesus Christ himself appeared to Paul, one of the humblest and yet most gifted men this world has ever known, a man of whom this world was not worthy, and made Paul one of his apostles, charging him with the mission to the Gentiles.[/quote]
Is there a particular reason you didn’t actually answer the question? Just because you dodge my questions and requests doesn’t mean I have forgotten about them.
I have asked you for information, and you have ignored those requests. I have asked you direct questions, and as usual you have either completely ignored or deflected them.
I have tried my best not to leave anything out, but I’m tired of arguing with a narcissistic elitist in sheep’s clothing. I will ask you one more question, and then I will ignore you until you answer the questions and requests I have made of you.
The original claim was that certain people in the OT saw and spoke to God. Then, when Christ made it known that no one had ever seen God, the story changed to them seeing an angel. I can absolutely agree with that. Here’s my question:
We are talking about an angel who characterized himself as I described before:
Appears as a fire that does not consume
Uses the serpent as a symbol of himself to Pharaoh
Kills with fire at the slightest mistake
Demands a blood sacrifice sprinkled on his altar
Loves the smell of burning flesh
Gives his people statutes that are no good and ordinances they can’t live by
Instructs them to murder women and children after he gave them the command to never murder
Spiteful
Hateful
Selfish
He also stood on holy ground, in the tabernacle, and in the temple and proclaimed himself God.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< My faith centers around the fact that Christ is Lord, His Father is God, and that His Word is the only truth. He was sent to fulfill the prophecies as proof of His identity, die for our sins, and to give us the Truth so that we may be set free.
He said that we only have one Teacher, yet “Christianity” follows Paul more closely than Christ, and you claim that my paradigm for approaching Christianity is outlandish?[/quote]Lemme know when you find the writings Jesus left penned by His own hand. Until then you’ll be relying on the writings of men whom He commissioned to be His instruments of Revelation. Like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And Paul. OR. You can pick and choose for yourself what you like based on wholly arbitrary and inconsistent exegesis and hermeneutics because it makes you feel uniquely endowed with truth that the whoooooooole church for 2 millenia has missed. Like practically every other pseudo Christian cult proclaims of itself. EVERYBODY had it wrong until our guy showed up.
[/quote]
Y’know, I’ve been meaning to ask you:
I gave you my e-mail address a couple of weeks ago because you apparently had something important to ask or tell me and PM’s aren’t working. You have sent me two messages with nothing in them that you haven’t already asked here, so what was the real purpose for contacting me other than on this forum?
Were you hoping to contact me via facebook or something so you could harass me and my friends and family as you have done before?
I ask because (IIRC) you were the one to complain about me using a pseudonym before, which made me think you had searched for me or something, and when you finally get a different way of contacting me, you say nothing?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Were you hoping to contact me via facebook or something so you could harass me and my friends and family as you have done before? >>>[/quote]Before calling you a liar I will give you the opportunity to either recant or declare that you have mistaken me for someone else.[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I ask because (IIRC) you were the one to complain about me using a pseudonym before, >>>[/quote]You DO NOT remember correctly. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< which made me think you had searched for me or something, and when you finally get a different way of contacting me, you say nothing?[/quote] I wanted to open an offline channel of communication so if the need arose we could talk away from the public forums. I have a half dozen people from here waiting on emails along with several from elsewhere. I am not avoiding you and there is NO scheme. I am not looking to do you ill JP. If after this post you persist in believing otherwise that’s your problem.
Unfortunately for you, denial is indeed your best weapon. Problem is, denial only works when the truth is not close at hand. I told you I’d been lurking and paying attention, but I guess you didn’t believe me?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Dearest Christopher in a rather bold move a while back went to my Facebook page and posted this http://www.almostnotcatholic.com/2012/06/myth-busters-catholicism-teaches.html article by a guy named Brent. The debate that ensued was aborted by Brother Chris for reasons I will allow him to elucidate if he were to find himself so inclined.[/quote]
You really wish for me to give reason why?
Because you searched out my friends and harassed them by emailing and commenting on their personal and business websites and continued to disrespect me and the privilege I allowed to you in having contact with people who are important to me…after I asked you to stop insulting my friends, nevertheless you continued to contact and harass my friends so I deleted you from my Facebook since you could not handle not attacking my friends.[/quote]
As much as I disagree with Chris, I respect him and believe that he is an honest man.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote: @KingKai I read an interesting tidbit in “The Resurrection of Jesus” where it discusses the synoptics account of Jesus trial. In Mark and Matthew seems to more closely follow the ipsissima verba of Jesus while in Luke it seems to more closely follow the ipsissima vox of Jesus. The former because both gospels were written to a Jewish Audience who would understand the Son of Man sayings while in Luke it seems to be a redaction of both and focuses more on the Son of God sayings since it was written to the gentiles who would not understand the significances of the Son of Man. This fits with the Gospels being Greco-Roman biography(bioi) quite well
@JP I do not understand what your position is really about if you can go into detail that would be appreciated. Anyways concerning the words of Jesus if you believe that God through his providence preserved the ipsissima verba of Jesus regardless of the author’s intent you still have some problems. How do you identify the very words of Jesus in the Gospels if like in the example above you have 3 different “word for word” versions of the same event; how do you choose? What about the sayings of Jesus that are present in other documents in the new testament that are not present in others? Since the Gospel was spread by Oral tradition for 35-65 years before the four Gospels were written down when Paul was already chummy with the Jerusalem Apostles who also recognized him as an Apostle before said Gospels were written do you really think the writers intended to write the exact words of Jesus when you have the same event in the four Gospels they are not word for word the same? You don’t think they had to interpret Jesus words first and than decide whether to (as in the above example) tailor it to its intended audience not to mention deciding which sayings to include or dismiss depending on the goal of their writing?
Anyways I see you have a problem with the “Old Testament God”. Will you please watch atleast the first youtube video?(you can watch the other 2 if you want, they just go into more examples he doesn’t cover in his first one). I believe your objections mainly stems from a misunderstanding of the context of the things written and their purpose although I don’t expect it to change your opinion.
“- YouTube” is Part 1 there is also Part 2[/quote]
I was finally able to watch the whole video. You’re right, it won’t change my mind. Main reason for that being that Israel was punished for not carrying out the order to exterminate all of them. So the order was not hyperbole, as Dr. Copan would have us believe.
Thank you for posting the video, though. His opinion is very different from most I’ve read, but it just seems a little too sugar-coated.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Unfortunately for you, denial is indeed your best weapon. Problem is, denial only works when the truth is not close at hand. I told you I’d been lurking and paying attention, but I guess you didn’t believe me? >>>[/quote]I will continue for the moment to suspend judgement and ask, please, if you could link and quote the conversation where this occurred?
Right there on the first page. Brother Chris’ commentary of your behavior gets much worse than what I quoted, and your own responses don’t exactly paint the situation in a positive light.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Were you hoping to contact me via facebook or something so you could harass me and my friends and family as you have done before? >>>[/quote]I “harassed” YOUR friends and FAMILY before?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Right there on the first page. Brother Chris’ commentary of your behavior gets much worse than what I quoted, and your own responses don’t exactly paint the situation in a positive light.
[/quote]You really are sumthin else. Two things. I didn’t seek ANYBODY out. We talked on HIS page and facebook’s private chat and I followed links that HE provided to public sites that WERE NOT facebook. That situation is handled for now and has literally NOTHING to do with you OR anybody’s family. I have lots of email addresses from people here who haven’t heard from me in a while, Including Brother Chris whose cell phone number I also have, but you’re the only one accusing me of some sort of plot as if I’d have nobody to talk to unless I lure you into some secret scheme to harass your friends and family.
“Were you hoping to contact me via facebook or something so you could harass me and my friends and family as you have done to at least one other person on this forum before?” But of course, I should have left out ‘family’, because you didn’t harass the man’s family. Just other people who are important to him. I get confused sometimes because I usually refer to the people who are important to me as family.
The situation may be ‘handled for now’, but reading your posts from that thread destroyed any respect I had for you and will prevent me from trusting you from here on out.
[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:
I never post here in pwi but what the hell. Ive noticed some here are VERY troubled by other peoples belief systems. I for one do believe in god, now i also believe in evolution and im pro-choice. I dont care if people choose to worship satan and drink blood (as long as blood is given willingly). Why should i care what others believe? Do i think some beliefs are crazy or stupid? yes but I have to ask HH why are you so troubled by christianity? I think maybe you were assaulted sexually or otherwise by a person of faith? No? did one of those televangilist take your money? fuck your wife? Im sorry for the wrong they did to you sincerely. Now can we let people worship whatever god, deity, spirit, space alien or golden statue they like without going out of our way to stir shit among them? Give it a shot devote some of your faith hate to something productive, or maybe start your own church called “i dont believe in shit and neither should you”[/quote]
Religion is anti-mind. Faith is the substitution of someone else’s judgment for your own.
It is mysticism, of gun or religion, that is destroying the world.
If you think that’s not worth fighting against, well, just bend over and pepper thy angus.
[/quote]
So you feel the need to attack people for their religion? I don’t come out here and attack you for not being religious.
